Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification (MPEP 608.01, ¶6.31).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/27/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Applicant corrected the identified typos, and thus the related objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant amended the claims to remove the relative terminology, and thus the related 112b rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant clarified the claim 6-7 issue, and thus the 112d rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Min (US20240083461).
Regarding claim 1, Min discloses;
A method of performing a minimal risk maneuver for automated driving (MRM)-road shoulder stop (SS) of a vehicle by an automated driving system (ADS) (disclosed as a controller executing a minimal risk maneuver [MRM], paragraph 0059, when normal autonomous driving is not possible, paragraph 0071), the method comprising:
generating a first potential stopping location (PSL) (disclosed as determining a potential stopping location, such as a shoulder of a road relating to full shoulder stop [type 4] or half shoulder stop [type 3], paragraphs 0075-0076, and 0118);
determining a target stopping location (TSL) based on the first PSL (disclosed as determining stop type further based on the size of the shoulder vs the size of the vehicle, paragraph 0124); and
controlling a road shoulder stop of the vehicle based on the TSL (disclosed as determining a final MRM strategy to perform, and controlling the vehicle based on the final MRM strategy, paragraph 0099),
wherein a type of the MRM is changed based on the determining of the TSL being unsuccessful (shown in Fig 10; wherein a shoulder stop location [MRM type 3 or 4] is attempted to be determined, S1003, paragraph 0118, and if not, proceeding to a different kind of MRM such as in lane stop or straight stop [MRM type 2 or 1], S1019 or S1021).
Regarding claim 2, Min discloses;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein the determining of the TSL comprises:
based on the determining of the TSL being unsuccessful, performing a first operation for MRM (disclosed as, upon determining that there is no appropriate shoulder stop location, paragraph 0118, switching the MRM type, shown in Fig 10, S1003 and S1015),
wherein the controlling of the road shoulder stop of the vehicle comprises: based on determining that reaching the TSL is unsuccessful, performing a second operation for the MRM (disclosed as, when performing the shoulder stop could result in liability/accident of the vehicle [as in being unsuccessful in performing/completing the selected MRM], changing the MRM type, shown in Fig 10, S1007 and S1011),
wherein the first operation is generating a second PSL different from the first PSL or changing an MRM type (disclosed as, upon determining that there is no appropriate shoulder stop location, paragraph 0118, switching the MRM type, shown in Fig 10, S1003 and S1015),
wherein the MRM type is one of MRM type 1 for a straight stop, MRM type 2 for an in- lane stop, or MRM type 3 for a road shoulder stop (shown in Fig 3, where the claimed MRM type 3 encompasses types 3 and 4 of Min), wherein the changing of the MRM type comprises:
changing the MRM type from the MRM type 3 to one of the MRM type 1 and the MRM type 2 (disclosed as, upon determining that there is no appropriate shoulder stop location, paragraph 0118, switching the MRM type, shown in Fig 10, S1003 and S1015).
Regarding claim 3, Min discloses;
The method of claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection), wherein the changing of the MRM type comprises:
changing the MRM type from the MRM type 3 to the MRM type 2 based on at least one of a communication module, a sensing module, and database of the ADS being in a normal state (disclosed as changing the MRM type to type 2 based on the shoulder position and distances, paragraph 0099 with no abnormal operation detected); and
changing the MRM type from the MRM type 3 to the MRM type 1 based on the communication module, the sensing module and the database of the ADS being in an abnormal state (disclosed as selecting the MRM strategy, upon abnormal operation of control functions or sensors, to be a type 1 MRM, paragraph 0099, further shown in type 1 stops not requiring appropriate controls for lateral or various sensing conditions to perform, for example Fig 3 321, 322, 324, and 325).
Regarding claims 6-7, it has been determined that they recite the exact same limitations as claims 2-3 respectively. Therefore, claims 6-7 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 2-3.
Regarding claim 8, Min discloses;
The method of claim 6 (see claim 6 rejection), wherein the controlling of the road shoulder stop of the vehicle comprises:
based on determining that reaching the TSL is unsuccessful (disclosed as determining that driver intervention is required, paragraph 0108, which indicates that autonomous driving cannot effectively complete the maneuver), performing the second operation and a fallback alarm (disclosed as issuing a warning to a driver to request driver intervention, paragraph 0108),
wherein the fallback alarm is at least one of a message alarm or a sound alarm to guide a fallback of a driver of the vehicle (disclosed as issuing a warning to a driver to request driver intervention, paragraph 0108).
Regarding claim 10, Min discloses;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection) wherein the type of the MRM includes at least one of a first type for representing a straight stop or a second type for representing an in-lane stop (shown in Fig 3, where the claimed MRM type 3 encompasses types 3 and 4 of Min).
Regarding claim 11, Min discloses;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection) wherein the determining of the TSL being unsuccessful is determined based on at least one [examiner interprets this to mean only one is required] of i) whether or not the PSL is within a region of interest (ROI), ii) whether or not the ADS is in condition to reach the PSL (disclosed as determining that driver intervention is required, paragraph 0108), iii) whether or not the PSL has available space (disclosed as determining whether the appropriate/available shoulder stop exists, paragraph 0118).
Regarding claims 9 and 12-13, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 1 and 10-11. Therefore, claims 9 and 12-13 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 10-11, where claim 9 corresponds to claim 1, and claims 12-13 correspond to claims 11-12 respectively.
Regarding claim 14, Min discloses;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein the determining of the TSL being unsuccessful is based on at least one [interpreted to mean only one of the following conditions are required] of a system status abnormality of the ADS (disclosed as, for example, determining that lateral control is impossible, and determine an appropriate stop/MRM type based on the determination, paragraph 0025, or similarly for lane detection, paragraph 0027) or a region of interest (ROI) constraint.
Regarding claim 15, it has been determined that no further limitations occur apart from those previously addressed in claim 14. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 14.
Regarding Claim 16, Min discloses;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein the changing of the MRM type is performed based on a condition that a number of times the determining of the TSL is unsuccessful is greater than or equal to a threshold number of times (disclosed as, for example, determining whether the shoulder is an appropriate stopping location, and if not, changing MRM type paragraph 0118, which corresponds to a threshold number of one before moving onto the next operation).
Regarding claim 18, Min discloses;
The method of claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection), wherein the second operation further comprises
outputting a fallback alarm comprising at least one of a visual message or an audible sound to guide a manual fallback of a driver (disclosed as providing a warning to request to intervene to a driver when it is detected that driver intervention is required, paragraph 0108).
Regarding claim 19, Min discloses;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein the MRM type is changed from a road shoulder stop type to an in-lane stop type based on the sensing module being in a normal state, and to a straight stop type based on the sensing module being in an abnormal state (disclosed as detecting information indicating a defect in the lane detection sensor, paragraph 0099, and further performing a straight stop in a situation where lane detection is impossible, paragraph 0073; in combination, this would indicate that determining a defect in lane detection would lead to a straight stop MRM).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min (US20240083461) as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Iagnemma (US20180113457A1).
Regarding claim 4, Min teaches;
The method of claim 3 (see claim 3 rejection), wherein the first operation comprises:
changing the MRM type based on the preset condition being satisfied (taught as, if performing the shoulder stop would involve liability or accident of the vehicle, modifying the MRM, shown in Fig 10, S1007 and S1011).
However, Min does not explicitly teach; generating the second PSL based on a preset condition not being satisfied [interpreted to mean searching/selecting another stop location].
Iagnemma teaches; generating the second PSL based on a preset condition not being satisfied (taught as continuously updating the selected stopping place based on conditions, paragraph 0130).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeat a stop location search as taught by Iagnemma when performing a stop maneuver as taught by Min in order to improve stop selection. Under circumstances where one can continue to safely search for a stopping location, repeating evaluation with relaxed constraints enables for further options and optimization based on current objectives. Additionally, changes in environment may cause a previously infeasible location to become feasible or vice versa as suggested by Iagnemma (paragraph 0131).
Regarding claim 5, Min as modified by Iagnemma teaches;
The method of claim 4 (see claim 4 rejection). Min further teaches; wherein the preset condition comprises:
a condition that a number of times the determining of the TSL is unsuccessful is greater than or equal to a threshold number of times (taught as determining whether the shoulder is an appropriate stopping location, and if not, changing MRM type paragraph 0118, which corresponds a threshold number of one attempt); or [examiner interprets this to mean only one of the recited conditions needs to be satisfied] a condition that data received from a vehicle ahead or infrastructure through vehicle-to- everything (V2X) communication indicates that determining the TSL is unsuccessful.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min (US20240083461) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Veshchikov (US20240395083A1).
Regarding claim 17, Min teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Min does not explicitly teach; wherein the determining of the TSL is determined to be unsuccessful based on data received from an external infrastructure or a leading vehicle via vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication.
Veshchikov teaches; wherein the determining of the TSL is determined to be unsuccessful based on data received from an external infrastructure or a leading vehicle via vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication (taught as cooperative malfunction detection to detect issues of malfunctions with other vehicles, paragraph 0014, such as with V2V communication, paragraph 0016).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a data source for malfunction detection from outside the host vehicle as taught by Veshchikov in the system taught by Min in order to improve malfunction detection and response. As taught by Veshchikov, some issues might only be noticeable [or more easily noticed] from outside the host vehicle (paragraph 0003), and thus including outside sources of data would improve the identification of potential malfunctions. One of ordinary skill in the art would use the teachings of Veshchikov, such that abnormalities and malfunctions are detected and communicated from outside the host vehicle, to initiate the process of modifying MRM as taught in Min, to improve the detection and response to potential malfunctions in the host vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of the remarks that the prior art does not sufficiently address “wherein a type of the MRM is changed based on the determining of the TSL being unsuccessful”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not define “being unsuccessful” as the actual search/calculation of the TSL failing; rather, that it does not find an appropriate result. The disclosure does not appear to discount this interpretation, as the references to determining the TSL being “unsuccessful” do not further specify or define “unsuccessful”, and that a plain interpretation of “determining that finding a TSL is unsuccessful” would include that no appropriate TSL under such requirements of the current MRM choice could be found, and thus requires other criteria/MRM to complete. Additionally, Min discloses determining/detection that certain ADS functions are abnormal or compromised, including lateral control (e.g. paragraph 0025) or lane sensing (paragraph 0027), which then influence the MRM type. The examiner acknowledges the intended difference argued by the applicant [and suggests amending the claim language to narrow the interpretation to such intent to overcome the current rejection, such as in the dependent claims 14/15, 17]; however, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims includes interpreting the failure to find an appropriate TSL to be “unsuccessful”, and the rejection over Min is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further stop location/trajectory selection; US12071162B2, US11726492B2, US11181921B2 and US20190235499A1
For anomaly detection and response for autonomous stopping; US20240149892A1, US202303999019A1
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571)270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights